MovieBob Syndrome

Russell Michaels

Russell is inside his own mind, a comfortable yet silly place. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

11 Responses

  1. DensityDuck says:

    “MovieBob thinks himself an Übermensch. For reasons I do not adequately understand.” (emphasis in original)

    Paradoxically, the world getting smaller due to the Internet means that individuals can be bigger.

    It used to be that if a thousand people around the world read your column, you’d never know it, because the world is a big place and those thousand people are all over it. But with the internet the entire world is in the palm of your hand in all truth, and a thousand people who read your column are right there. And a thousand people is a lot of people to have right there with you, certainly enough to convince yourself that you’ve really got something that people want. And if you’re used to the idea that for every subscriber there’s ten listeners, well.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    I’ve seen a handful of his discussions of movies and some of them are pretty good. For example, he explained Sucker Punch to me. (Here was my take, a million years ago. Here’s his.)

    As criticism goes, I found it insightful. I understood the movie better after watching his take on it.

    But then I read stuff of his like this:

    And I find my jaw on the floor and my bile production increases and I get irrationally irritated and it can only be tempered by stuff like this:

    And then I feel better.Report

  3. Some Guy says:

    Man I’m really curious, do you think Paul Krugman and Noam Chomsky are insignificant?

    Also could you tell me what his “Cohorts in Critical Theory” are?Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Some Guy says:

      Yeah, the idea that Noam Chomsky is “insiginifant”, at least if not for self-promotion, is a dead givewaway for a Young Person’s View. Chomsky is probably one of the least self-promoting people in American intellectual history, relying on argument rather than personality to make whatever points he wants to make. His stature – which young people are unaware of – derive from his achievements, not fluffery. That Young People nowadays completely misunderstand him certainly isn’t his fault.

      Add: he may have been *wrong* about certain theses he defended, of course, but that doesn’t make him a pretender.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

        Following up on that, here’s a perfect example of Chomsky’s low-key, self-effacing nature:

        A “self-promoter”? Come on.Report

        • Some Guy in reply to Stillwater says:

          I thought it was a pretty funny thing to say too, who could say the Chompsky :
          A) Is big headed and self centered
          B) Is not a significant person in his fields (and outside of them)

          I feel it’s pointless to say why because he’s such a giant in 2 academic fields and in Pop PolySci. If he was a huge self promotor it still wouldn’t be relevant.

          Anyone curious about what old Noam is all about, watch this interview with Brian Magee about his language philosophy:
          They cover lots of areas Noam is interested though, and Magee (like in all his interviews) has clearly done his homework.

          Also Paul Krugman is a Nobel Laureate, need I say more?

          Still waiting to find out what MovieBob’s “Cohorts in Critical Theory” are.Report

  4. Stillwater says:

    “It is a person who ascribes far more worth and influence to themselves than they actually have. This is narcissism on steroids.”

    I THINK I understand the worry (self promoters win by self promotion) but how is it possible for a person to ascribe more influence to themselves than they actually have *without* people ascribing that level of influence to them? Isn’t the blame – if one wants to ascribe it – to the people who fall for self-promotion, ie., a stunningly decadent* American culture which perpetually circles the drain?

    *See: reality TV shows and a reality TV show presidencyReport

  5. David says:

    You shouldn’t dignify Movie Bob by naming a phenomenon after him. He’s a liberal evangelical, both in terms of him being preachy and in him believing in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. The difference between him and evangelical Christians is that he views the world through pop culture, while they view it through God. And his politics are different, of course.Report

  1. April 15, 2021

    […] I covered in my previous article about him. In my first Economics of Action Figures article, my MovieBob Syndrome article, and my most recent article, I brought up Ron Paul in a rather disparaging […]Report